WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Friday ordered new interim maps drawn for Texas' April 3 primary, handing Republicans a partial if possibly short-lived victory in a battle over as many as four House seats.
The unsigned decision sends the case back to a federal district court in San Antonio, which in November drew interim districts to tide Texas over while litigation over their final shape continues. The Supreme Court directed the San Antonio court to base interim maps on the redistricting plan that Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed last year, rather than use "its own concept of 'the collective public good.' "
It was unclear, however, if the lower court would have to make drastic changes to the interim maps. The justices said the San Antonio court could deviate from the Perry-approved map to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits dilution of minorities' voting power.
Texas is in an unusual situation because of its slow-moving redistricting process and its special obligations under the Voting Rights Act. Like other states with a history of racial discrimination in elections, Texas is required to obtain approval from the Justice Department or a federal district court in Washington before altering its voting procedures.
Texas has sued in Washington to obtain "preclearance" for its map. At the same time, however, civil-rights groups and minority voters filed their own lawsuit in the San Antonio court against the Perry-signed plan, contending it violated the Voting Rights Act.
The federal court in Washington found there was enough doubt over whether the state's maps "were enacted with discriminatory intent" to order a trial, which is currently under way.
Texas' gain of 4.3 million people was overwhelmingly due to growth of Democratic-leaning minority communities, which added 2.8 million Hispanics and 523,000 blacks, compared to fewer than 465,000 whites, who tend to vote Republican. The challengers argue that the Perry-approved maps split the minority groups into white-dominated districts to prevent them from electing their favored candidates.
The San Antonio court said the state couldn't implement its map unless the district court in Washington approved it. In the interim, the San Antonio court crafted new districts that in its view don't disadvantage minorities. Texas appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that since the Perry-signed maps hadn't been ruled discriminatory, they should be used in the interim. At a minimum, the state argued its maps should be given "deference" by the court.
"Some specific aspects of the District Court's plans seem to pay adequate attention to the State's policies, others do not, and the propriety of others is still unclear," the Supreme Court said Friday. For instance, the justices said, it was unclear whether the San Antonio court's redrawing of Fort Worth-area congressional districts was based on proper grounds.
The San Antonio court must now try again to draw the maps, and some lawyers said the state might have to postpone the April 3 primary date to allow time. A spokesman for the secretary of state said it was too soon to say whether a delay was needed.
The Perry-approved map creates a white-dominated district in suburban Denton County with a "lightning-bolt" shaped finger that scoops up minority neighborhoods in Fort Worth. The surrounding 12th and 33rd Congressional Districts likewise would be white-dominated, and all three would likely go Republican, analysts said.
Associated Press
Sen. Jose Rodriguez, left, and Sen. Steve Ogden are shown in front of a map showing Congressional districts in Texas during debate on the re-districting bill in the Senate on June 6, 2011, in Austin.
The San Antonio court's plan creates two white-dominated suburban-based districts, the 26th in Denton County and the 12th in Parker County, and a more compact 33rd District in Fort Worth's Tarrant County. The San Antonio court described this as a "minority coalition opportunity district" in which Hispanics and blacks could "band together to form an electoral majority," the Supreme Court said.
The justices told the district court to clarify whether they intentionally created such a minority coalition district—which the high court said was unjustifiable—or if they simply were describing the result of a district drawn for permissible reasons related to population shifts.
Democrats and Republicans took different lessons from the high court's ruling. "From today's decision, I don't see that much that would change if the [San Antonio] court does what the Supreme Court says," said Renea Hicks, an Austin lawyer representing minority voters in the case along with the Democratic-leaning city of Austin and Travis County, which allege their own voting strength was diluted by the Perry-approved plan.
The San Antonio court, he said, simply needs to clear up "a little bit of ambiguity" in its rationale for drawing the districts.
Republicans, however, suggested the lower court would have to make more-significant changes in deference to the Legislature's view of how the maps should look. "As the justices point out, courts are ill-suited to make policy judgments and redistricting is primarily the responsibility of the state," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican.